Will Virtualization Kill the Desktop?

IDC recently released a report suggesting that virtualization is hurting server sales, and the web lit up with debate. The argument, crudely put, is that technology that replaces a single physical machine with several virtual machines will eventually translate to less of the former and more of the latter.

On the other hand, you could argue (as Jeff Gould does here) that data growth, driven in part by the mobile market and the Web, has in fact increased demand for server capacity in general, and in particular for powerful, virtualization-enabled servers.

So how do these same concepts play out in the desktop space? At ClearCube, we believe that virtualization’s basic ability to transform one-to-one configurations into one-to-many will have its most dramatic effect on the largest, slowest-moving target in the user arena: desktop PCs.

Why would a company continue to buy individual boxes for individual users, requiring individual image installs, software upgrades, and security settings, when they could simply allocate users to blade-hosted VMs instead? The initial cost of hardware might be cheaper for a desktop PC, but the lifetime cost savings associated with PC Blades are quantifiable and real.

Nick Carr writes, on the topic of server virtualization, that

“It’s important to remember that what’s really being consumed is computing cycles, not servers; through consolidation and virtualization companies may both consume a lot more cycles and buy a lot fewer boxes.” (Rough Type)

In other words, what’s really at issue is how businesses can most efficiently, cost-effectively meet their computing needs. The packaging is secondary. That’s not great news for desktop PCs, but it’s a great opportunity for client-side innovators.